Mel Gibson pushed for President

  • Thread starter Thread starter jdnation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Fiat:
You attempted to praise secularism, indicating that it is our secular government which makes us free.
No attempt to praise. I misphrased my sentence.
you have offered nothing else of the American experience to praise.
Was I supposed to offer something else?
(This is not to imply that there IS nothing else in the American experience to praise. Surely there is. But you haven’t offered anything.)
Sorry. How about generally honest elections, freedom of speech and worship, and Memphis barbeque?
And, I brought up Deng to illustrate that your notion that secularism equalizes religions would never be accepted by Deng. Do you care? Probably not.
Wasn’t my point, but I’m sure you don’t care, either.
 
40.png
Fiat:
Of course, if your purpose here is to convince us how great secularism is.
Well, it sure beats anything else I can think of vis-a-vis our Constitution and as a preventive of a theocracy in America.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Well, it sure beats anything else I can think of vis-a-vis our Constitution and as a preventive of a theocracy in America.
In what respects?
 
40.png
Brad:
He stood up against the killing of Terri Schiavo in a large way.

He gave many interviews regarding the Passion in which he publically expressed his faith quite often.

He was persecuted relentlessly during the making of the film but did it anyways because it was the right thing to do.

He’s working on additional Catholic based movies.
Like i said, outside of The Passion of The Christ, in what ways has he set himself apart being Catholic (besides the Passion of The Christ)
  1. Terri Schiavo, this is a very good point, (but even secularists were fighting for her)
Please tell me the other Catholic movies he is supposedly making, i went to www.imdb.com and tried to find one but came up empty handed, so please tell me where i can find information on this.

Also, i have seen his interview with Raymond Arroyo, and he seemed very nervous and almost uninterested in the interview.
 
40.png
Bella3502:
I totally agree… Why can’t you be Catholic and Patriotic, or Jewish and Patriotic, Baptist and Patriotic, or Muslim and Patriotic?

We ALL make up America. And we all should have Religious Freedom.

I don’t want the Koran displayed at courthouses any more than the Ten Commandments. I know what they mean, I don’t need to see them displayed. We take our children to Church for a reason. I don’t send them to Public schools to learn religion.
Thank you!
 
No offense with regards to anyone and their perspective, but I thought that the only objective qualifications for President are:

  1. *]A natural born citizen of the United States.
    *]35 years old
    *]Reside within the United States for at least 14 years.

    Since Mel Gibson meets all of these qualification, then he is qualified to be President, political and religious perspectives notwithstanding. Intermission over, please continue with the fracas.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Give me a Scriptural citation. Chistianity is in fact a very jealous religion.
You cannot be serious? Have you read the New Testament? If you insist, here are a few quotations:

Mathew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Mathew 5:11-12 Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
12"Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you

Mathew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
40.png
Richardols:
Some founders were Christians, some not. Some leaders have been Christian, some not.
Each and every single founding father was undeniably Christian aside from 3. Even those 3 frequently prayed, called people into prayer and acknowledged a transcendent God. More than half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees. Can you name 1 single president in the history of the United States that was not a Christian? You can make single, blanket statements all you want but when they have no fact or intellectual honesty behind them, then they have no meaing.
40.png
Richardols:
We’re free because we are a secular nation where all are equal where no particular faith dominates. The U.S. Constitution makes no reference to “Judeo-Christianity.”
This isn’t even logical. A free country requires the recognition of transcendent rights an d law from a transcendent being as the source of those rights and law, for, if it does not, then man in power is free to take away those rights by maneuvering any of the laws at his will and whimsy.
 
40.png
Richardols:
We’re free because we are a secular nation where all are equal where no particular faith dominates. The U.S. Constitution makes no reference to “Judeo-Christianity.”
By the way, in addition to the above points, secular humanism is a belief system that, per the definition of religion, qualifies as religous per Supreme Court. By not allowing Christianity or Judaism to not be supported by government, government will gravitate towards other belief systems. The predominant one now is secular humanism. Why is this allowed to be pushed by government in a nation where no particular faith dominates?
 
40.png
Richardols:
Being a secular nation means that no particular religious group can impose its ideology on us as a nation and that all religious groups are equal in America.
We are not a secular nation. We are a free nation. Being a free nation means that no particular religous group can force someone to obey the commands of it’s religion.
 
40.png
Richardols:
I didn’t know that you were looking for a precise definition. There are pages and pages written on what it means to be a secular nation as opposed to a theocracy. I was just giving you my IMO about our secular government in America.

How would it matter to Deng?
There is gigantic middle ground between a secular nation and a theocracy. Why is it that, rather than meet in the middle, you are insisting on the belief system of secularlism, which does not recognize God period, as the guiding force of our nation? Stating that the only other alternative is theocracy is not intellectually honest.
 
40.png
Brad:
There is gigantic middle ground between a secular nation and a theocracy. Why is it that, rather than meet in the middle, you are insisting on the belief system of secularlism, which does not recognize God period, as the guiding force of our nation? Stating that the only other alternative is theocracy is not intellectually honest.
I agree. It seems to mee that a true “secular” nation would be like the USSR, an atheocracy, rule by godless. A free society would seem to be one that embraced religious worship and even faith-based opinions in the public square, which is definately the foundation of this country. There are forces at work that wish to scrub all vestiges of religious experience from the public square, and therefor make this country into an atheocracy, or secular society.
 
40.png
Bella3502:
I totally agree… Why can’t you be Catholic and Patriotic, or Jewish and Patriotic, Baptist and Patriotic, or Muslim and Patriotic?
You can be and many are.
40.png
Bella3502:
We ALL make up America. And we all should have Religious Freedom.
Yes. And we do. And we always have. Isn’t it great? Why do we need to change things?
40.png
Bella3502:
I don’t want the Koran displayed at courthouses any more than the Ten Commandments. I know what they mean, I don’t need to see them displayed. We take our children to Church for a reason. I don’t send them to Public schools to learn religion.
You may not send them to public schools to learn religion. But the publics schools may be teaching something that contradicts and opposes your religion. Is that ok?
 
40.png
Richardols:
Well, it sure beats anything else I can think of vis-a-vis our Constitution and as a preventive of a theocracy in America.
What is your basis for the argument that we are headed for theocracy? The United States government and public schools were undeniably far more Christian in the 1700s and 1800s and early 1900s than they are today, and yet, the country was not a theocracy. Now we are moving in a direction to strip all these vestiges of Christianity away. Christians say this is a bad direction to go in - we just want it back to half the way it was before. You claim this would make us a theocracy.

Again, no logic here.
 
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
Like i said, outside of The Passion of The Christ, in what ways has he set himself apart being Catholic (besides the Passion of The Christ)
  1. Terri Schiavo, this is a very good point, (but even secularists were fighting for her)
Yes, but a severe shortage of Catholic “leaders”.
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
Please tell me the other Catholic movies he is supposedly making, i went to www.imdb.com and tried to find one but came up empty handed, so please tell me where i can find information on this.
cathnews.com/news/503/44.php

catholic-pages.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3615
40.png
Sean.McKenzie:
Also, i have seen his interview with Raymond Arroyo, and he seemed very nervous and almost uninterested in the interview.
He always looks this way. He’s a bit, shall we say, energy driven.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
There are forces at work that wish to scrub all vestiges of religious experience from the public square, and therefor make this country into an atheocracy, or secular society.
Exactly, and this is what we are opposed to, an atheocracy. That is the direction we are headed in, making these emotional concerns about a theocracy pretty pointless. These emotional appeals against theocracy are kind of like the local volunteer fire department daily running around the neighborhood breaking windows and blasting homes with water just in case there is a fire inside.
 
For reference (and to completely hijack this thread from it’s title):

THE FOUNDING FATHERS THEIR TRUE VIEW ON RELIGION’S ROLE IN GOVERNMENT By DANIEL T. ZANOZA & JULIA MARY ZANOZA “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, I would never have placed my signature to it.” - George Washington

There is an ever-growing debate in America over the relationship between government and religion. In recent times, Constitutional law, or at least the modern-day interpretation thereof, has moved from one of accommodation concerning religion to a position many call hostile to the expression of personal faith in the public square. From their writings, it’s clear the Founding Fathers had strong views on the subject. And though not politically correct, they were prolific in writing about God and nation. After all, 27 out of the 57 men who signed the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution had the modern day equivalent of seminary degrees (extensive studies of Greek, Hebrew, and Biblical text). They did not intend for America to be a theocracy, but they certainly believed the nation’s laws should be tied to natural laws God created. John Adams, America’s second President said, “It is religion and morality, alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” The Constitution’s framers used the Judeo-Christian ethic as a foundation for this new government. In creating America, they were beginning a unique experiment whereby everyone would be able to practice their religion freely, privately and publicly. Just as important, they also meant for Judeo-Christian principles to undergird our laws. In another speech, Adams said, “Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free government, but all social felicity under all governments and in all combinations of human society.” Many Americans don’t realize how adamant the Framers were on these points. Current history books in public schools also neglect to describe how these men thoroughly and diligently studied hundreds of years of civilizations that had come and gone in order to lay down these solid principles.

Much of the debate over this issue stems from the misuse of the phrase “separation of church and state.” If asked, most Americans would attribute these words to the U.S. Constitution. In reality, the term does not appear in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence or any formal United States document. The phrase was extracted from a letter written by then-President Thomas Jefferson in 1802. He was responding to correspondence from the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association.

A quote from the Danbury letter reads, “It is not to be wondered at therefore, that those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow man, (or) should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ”.

Jefferson meant to calm their fears by quoting the First Amendment of the Constitution. He wrote them back, saying, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God…that the legislative powers of government…should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

continued…
 
Jefferson himself took this opportunity to borrow from the well-noted Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who said,"…the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall." It’s evident the primary intent of the phrase “wall of separation” was to protect the garden of the church from invasion by the state. (However, it must be pointed out that Thomas Jefferson did not sign the Constitution, was not present at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was out of the country during the discussion over religious freedom within the First Amendment).

David Barton - Founder and Executive Director of Wallbuilders, Inc. and a Constitutional scholar-says the wall was meant to be one-directional. For proof he cited early court rulings such as Reynolds v. U.S., 1878. The case used Jefferson’s letter to prove the one way nature of the wall. The court ruled government was responsible to enforce civil laws according to Judeo-Christian principles.

Barton goes on to say separation of church and state pertains to denominational differences, not basic Christian mores. For example, a group could not practice human sacrifice claiming Constitutional protection. The court also ruled Mormons could not engage in bigamy or polygamy. Barton concluded by saying the wall kept the government from running the church, but it never separated religious principles from government.

Much can be learned about the intent of the Constitutional framers by a review of the Northwest Ordinance. The draft was prepared by Thomas Jefferson. It was originally approved by Congress July 13, 1787 and re-passed by the Founding Fathers following the U.S. Constitution’s ratification. On August 7, 1789, President George Washington signed it into law-during the same time Congress was laying down the First Amendment. Article lII of this Ordinance states, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged”.

On April 30, 1802, President Jefferson signed the enabling act for Ohio to join the union which said this newest state must agree with the Northwest Ordinance. If Jefferson believed there was a distinct wall of separation between church and state, he would not have ratified this act just months after his letter to the Danbury Baptist group.

Again, it is clear that the Supreme Court, which included men who had created and signed the Constitution, looked upon religious principles as the moral foundation of this early government. When they spoke of religion, it appears they were referring to sects or denominations. This notion is bolstered by the words of Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a Supreme Court Justice, who said “Religion is of general and public concern and on its proper support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.”

What has led to the modern-day, secular view of the U.S. Constitution? Many people assert the document is subject to change according to cultural whim. However, the amendment process was to be the means by which the Constitution was to undergo this change. Judicial activists have circumvented this procedure, creating laws instead of interpreting them.

The re-interpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment can be traced to a court decision in the 1920’s, but the roots of this new legal perspective date back to the turn of the century. The humanistic teachings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud cannot be overlooked in the new role of religion in American culture. Subsequently, the beliefs which a society holds dear are reflected in its laws. But some say the shift to a non-theistic translation of the Constitution was begun by a cultural elite that shared little of the values held by the general populace.

Systematically, with the aid of judicial activism, religion has been deleted from the public square. Faith-based education was the first victim of this rush to government-sponsored secularism.

continued…
 
One of the earliest court rulings pertaining to religion within the establishment clause, in this new Constitutional vision, occurred in the Supreme Court case, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947. For the first time, Jefferson’s words were used in a totally unique context. By a 5-4 vote, the nation’s highest court ruled, “From the period of the early settlers, the American people believed that individual religious liberty could bc best achieved by a government that was stripped of all power to tax, to support or otherwise to assist any or all religions.” Legal scholars have noted this case used zero precedents, therefore abandoning the time-tested practice of common law. In contrast, the aforementioned case of Reynolds v. U.S. used Jefferson’s writings concerning church and state to prove quite the opposite. Hence, the foundation was now laid for the assault on the principles held so deeply by the Founding Fathers.

In 1958, a Supreme Court Justice demonstrated prophetic insight in giving his dissenting opinion concerning the case Baer v. Kolmorgen. He warned that the Court must be careful in its usage of the term “separation of church and state” because the public would believe those words appeared within the body of the Constitution. In the future, there might be some who would falsely attribute the phrase to the document itself. This judge truly had a vision of what was to come.

Perhaps the most significant landmark Supreme Court decision on religion and education was Engel v. Vitale, 1962. The court said that a verbal prayer in school is unconstitutional even if it is both voluntary and denominationally neutral The ruling opened the legal floodgates in the rush to remove religion from public schools. This case had a far-reaching effect on the culture of an entire nation as well.

In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in a classroom. The court used this rationale: If the Commandments are present in the classroom, someone might read them. If someone reads them, they might then act accordingly. And if they act accordingly, this violates the constitutional wall between state and religion.

These and other monumental court decisions were a result of an ever-growing barrier between church and state which, in turn, changed the way a nation lived. Rulings on issues such as abortion and pornography became possible in this atmosphere of moral relativism. Constitutional revisionists exclude morality from the legal equation. The state itself becomes the final arbiter between right and wrong.

However, it is evident the Founding Fathers felt a need to prescribe to a higher level of virtue. It can be argued that the reason the United States has thrived stems from the Framers’ reverence for something beyond humanity.

The false perception of the Constitutional framers as non-religious continues. This social and legal parallax is reinforced among the nation’s youth. A videotape entitled, “Myths America”, shown in some public schools, described the Founding Fathers as atheists who saw religion playing little or no role in their vision of a democratic republic. It also must be noted that prior to World War II, speeches such as George Washington’s farewell address, which was heavy in references to God and government, appeared in most American textbooks. However, from the ’40’s onward, his commentary has been deleted from history texts, helping to create a radically altered secular perception of the Founders.

It is safe to say modern America is no longer looked upon as a Christian nation by many people. The age-old question of what came first, the chicken or the egg, is entirely applicable in the discussion of religion and American government and, to a greater extent, American culture. It can be reasonably asserted that the purely secular perception of the law has revamped American society. It can be argued that this non- theistic culture is a direct result of post-modernism’s influence on the United States judiciary, a perfect example of cause and effect.

continued…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top